COMPRESSION TIME — Liquid-air energy storage

tmst · Oct 4, 2020

I am amazed to find that a mechanical storage method may win out over lithium-type batteries. The basic way it works appears to be based on latent heat. I haven't quite wrapped my wits around it, but it's intriguing. I'm interested in what problems and limitations might be expected:

A first-of-its-kind energy-storage system has been added to the grid in the UK. The 5MW/15MWh system stores energy in an unusual way: it uses excess electricity to cool ambient air down to -196°C (-320°F), where the gases in the air become liquid. That liquid is stored in an insulated, low-pressure container.

When there's a need for more electricity on the grid, the liquid is pumped back to high pressure where it becomes gaseous again and warmed up via a heat exchanger. The hot gas can then be used to drive a turbine and produce electricity.

The system is called Liquid Air Energy Storage (LAES, for short), and if you're thinking it sounds remarkably like Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES), you're right. LAES takes filtered ambient air and stores it so it can be used to create electricity later, just like CAES. But LAES liquifies the air rather than compressing it, which creates an advantage in storage. Compressed-air storage usually requires a massive underground cavern, but LAES just needs some low-pressure storage tanks, so it's more adaptable to areas that don't have the right geology.

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...science/2018/06/liquid-air-energy-storage-the-latest-new-battery-on-the-uk-grid

WAYNE3298 · Oct 4, 2020

My first thought is they would be better off selling the liquified gasses for a profit.

tmst · Oct 5, 2020

Granted, wind and solar power generation is still lame even with storage. And storage efficiency is only around 60%.

Here's a video and a user's comment on how it works in HVAC terms:

"It's a heat pump with:

a) an air liquefaction unit which serves as the compressor and condensing coil
b) a very large accumulator (pumped storage)
c) a turbine which serves as an evaporator coil in which the refrigerant is allowed to expand.

It relies upon extracting heat from the turbine room to evaporate liquified air refrigerant so that the air will expand in the turbine."

There's also a focus on using commercial, off-the-shelf (COTS) components to achieve economies of scale:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMLu9Dtw9yI

WAYNE3298 · Oct 5, 2020

As you have noted the energy has to be removed from the air to get down to the -320 F they reference. When used energy has to be added. Where the problems start is as the temperature gets to around -130 F CO2 starts to form. That has to been defrosted but then the turbo expander has to have hot nitrogen injected to nurse it through the temperature needed to send the gases to the precip tower. This process isn't as easy to start and stop as it might seem.
They can actually make a profit by selling the gases precipitated. I would have designed it to do that full time with the ability to increase production when excess energy was available.

tmst · Oct 5, 2020

Hmm. The process doesn't seem to be as robust as is being touted in the marketing materials. I wonder why normal air is being used instead of an azeotropic blend or compound in an enclosed system. Because of the high volumes needed?

WAYNE3298 · Oct 5, 2020

What they didn't tell you is that -320 F is difficult to obtain as far as getting through the icing up stage is concerned. I doubt if they have the controls to do it automatically. It baffles me why they would even want to repeat that process any more than absolutely necessary. Operating a cryogenic process also takes some expertise from the operators. Don't forget also that 70% of the air used is nitrogen which they are liquifying. All they need is a precipitation tower with liquid drain off for the different products and they can bottle it and sell it. I wonder how they are storing the product prior to using it and exactly how they are going to heat it for use. There is a lot they didn't disclose.

tmst · Oct 5, 2020

OK. I noticed a distinct lack of info but wasn't sure whether important details were lacking. -320F does seem nutty for what is supposed to be a hassle-free implementation of the refrigerant cycle. I guess we'll be hearing about it if it scales like they say.

WAYNE3298 · Oct 5, 2020

To precipitate the different gasses out the desired temperature is around -360 F but so what if you are already at -320 F. I'm sure there is a lot we don't know but it would be nice if they let us in on it. They have a lot more options than most because they generate their own power.
I hope we learn if this works out the way they hope. It is interesting though and I'm glad you shared it with us.

Poodle Head Mikey · Oct 5, 2020

The article states:

1. LAES takes filtered ambient air and stores it so it can be used to create electricity later, just like CAES.

2. But LAES liquifies the air rather than compressing it, which creates an advantage in storage.

3. Compressed-air storage usually requires a massive underground cavern, but LAES just needs some low-pressure storage tanks, so it's more adaptable to areas that don't have the right geology.

"just needs some low-pressure storage tanks" ? <g> Seems like a dismissive-wave-of-the-hand comment, doesn't it? <g>

PHM
--------

tmst said:
I am amazed to find that a mechanical storage method may win out over lithium-type batteries. The basic way it works appears to be based on latent heat. I haven't quite wrapped my wits around it, but it's intriguing. I'm interested in what problems and limitations might be expected:

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...science/2018/06/liquid-air-energy-storage-the-latest-new-battery-on-the-uk-grid

Artrose · Oct 5, 2020

I don't want to take this thread too far off topic, but wanted to express a few of my thoughts about electricity production, and storage......

Thorium reactors, or Fusion reactors, are more than likely to be our future energy production solutions. They can be supplemented with wind and solar, if necessary, just like petroleum is today.

Politics and big money continue to play their games. Wind and Solar are not the long term solution. There are too many reliability, maintenance, cost, and storage issues to ever be a long term solution. Ten years ago, my companies wind solutions, without subsidy, were total losers. Even with subsidy, 20 year pay offs, and at the end of the pay off period, the units required rebuilding because they are worn out.

The Thorium and Fusion solutions receive very little attention in the media, yet they are very likely our future. Way back in the early 70's, the Japanese had a Tomahawk reactor capable of outputting slightly more energy than it required to sustain the Fusion reaction. Here we sit nearly 50 years later, and you can't tell me the scientific community hasn't made significant progress.

Once these clean electricity generating solutions are satisfactorily developed, and released for commercial use, they can be used in co-generation (hospitals, office buildings), small scale (neighborhoods or industrial parks), or large scale operations (major electric grids). Our reliance upon large scale electrical grids, and their associated shortcomings, can also end if necessary.

People tend to forget that we have been using innovative large, and small, energy storage solutions for nearly the past 3/4 century, but most of those solutions have specific limitations. Too many people these days believe in some fantastic wind / solar chemical battery combination discovery that's going to save the world. Sorry, probably not anytime soon, if ever.

One example (out of many) of an old, large scale energy storage solution, is the Taum Sauk Hydroelectric Power Station, built by Union Electric in 1953, in south eastern Missouri, where they cut the top off a mountain and formed a man made lake. They fill that lake when customer demand is low, and then release the water back down to the generators when demand is high. A massive storage battery.

Small scale storage solutions such as ice, or any number of a multitude of other small scale storage solutions, just like the one you're talking about, are also viable as small short duration storage solutions. However, they often have difficult to overcome limitations.

And, there are many other long term, large scale, electricity generating schemes, like the ones that use super heated steam from volcanic formations that are close to the earth's surface, but these solutions are limited to specific geographic locations......................

Poodle Head Mikey · Oct 5, 2020

Nonetheless; I can take it even further off topic by attacking the premise. <g>

Most of what is stated here is based on both the present energy requirements and the assumption of perpetually increasing requirements.

I propose that the far superior place, at least for our initial endeavors, is to set about substantially reducing the requirements. The technology required is already well proven, readily available, and requires substantially less skill to apply effectively.

For just two small examples: We could subsidize solar reflective roofing to substantially reduce cooling loads - and with no moving parts. We could subsidize heated / cooled space insulation materials and methods - no moving parts.

And I can project that by applying simple basic technology which already exists - we can likely reduce our energy requirements to the point of making highly complicated solutions no longer viable / cost effective.

PHM
--------

WAYNE3298 · Oct 5, 2020

Great post Artrose. I worked on a geothermal power plant years back. The nuts in that state harassed the company that wanted to build it to the point they cancelled the project. The politicians didn't like the way it looked in spite of the fact it would have been essential pollution free. Go figure.
We can't make much progress in any area until the know nothing politicians let the people that know make the decisions.

Sapote · Oct 6, 2020

WAYNE3298 said:
Great post Artrose. I worked on a geothermal power plant years back. The nuts in that state harassed the company that wanted to build it to the point they cancelled the project. The politicians didn't like the way it looked in spite of the fact it would have been essential pollution free. Go figure.

I don't totally blame the politicians; they are pressured by the voters put them in offices. Until the majority of voters understand the PROs out weights the CONs then we make progresses. We easily blame the politicians but they cannot piss off the voters even if they want to do the right things. Progress might need to be done in small steps due to the reason of so many uneducated or mis-informed voters. This is why countries like China (dictatorship) can leapfrog with no restriction, not all are good for the planet though.

WAYNE3298 · Oct 5, 2020

Maybe for the long term Poodle but a bigger problem is the short term. What I mean is it will take a long time to retrofit existing structures with more energy efficient materials. Advancements in that part of it is also perpetually ongoing and hard to deal with for both reasons. Not that I'm against it because I'm not but we need plans for both approaches. I don't think cryogenics is the answer.

WAYNE3298 · Oct 6, 2020

Hey Poodle and Artrose how about elaborating on the new technologies. I'm not up on those things but if you guys are fill us in with as much as you can. I thought years ago that power generated from ocean waves had real promise but it looks like that idea hasn't got a lot of play. Do you know if that is dead?
This stuff is interesting and may guide some of the younger guys in a direction they will love.

Artrose · Oct 6, 2020

A couple YouTube videos hopefully might help spin up some interest...........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLrt_38LR3A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc8SJqAPVaM

Sapote · Oct 6, 2020

Re energy storage, this should work in theory but the system is a complex and high maintainence cost.

Why not using all of the readily available electric cars batteries around the country for this storage? Here how it can work: every electric car has a power meter just like our house has one, but it is built within the computer box in the car control system. Every parking lot/garage has underground wireless charger (like charging a electric toothbrush) and the parked car can be charged or discharged as needed by the power grid. At the end of the month the owner receive a bill showing refund or invoice for the amount of energy exchange. Win - win situation, and this creates millions good jobs for building the infacstructure. No high technical challenge to overcome or develop. No more worry about low charged battery and try to look for a charger at Rest Area.

More advanced scheme: The Highway road surfaces (millions square miles) are covered with solar and wireless charging system, and cars will be charged or discharged by the grid or the car battery level status while they are moving on the road.

hvacker · Oct 6, 2020

The future is an unknown. We could do what we can today for now and let technologies develop in their time.
The obvious is it will take Government intervention. This sticks in many peoples throat but it seems the two things that change an industry or the way we've always done things are competition or demand. Today the demand says "Cheaper"! The competition is over in those unknown countries where they talk funny.
There is not enough will to make the necessary sacrifice.

The Four Corners out here has a power plant. Coal fired and due to shut down in 2022. There is interest in CO2 capture and keep it on line. Sequestered in saline reservoirs. The Government will get involved to keep the coal industry floating. This is demand. From the coal people, the city of Farmington who has a 5% stake, the mines in Black Mesa, Power companies that could limit planned energy alternatives, workers in the plant and all that contribute to it's operation (including those I know in the SM Union.)
This shows how many entities it can take to affect change. A lot of convincing.

Some things are a lot simpler. Like the guy that takes the unwanted fly ash and makes light weight concrete blocks from it. This is easier than CO2.

WAYNE3298 · Oct 6, 2020

Coal fired power plant effluents have been cleaned up a tremendous amount over the years. That's the reason you no longer see a pure panic to get rid of them.
The use of government involvement in the energy business and conservation of energy wouldn't be necessary if the movement was self sustaining by the force of economic viability. If the economics are there getting industry on board would be easy some of them would even contribute. As a matter of fact the government would love it because they spend fortunes every year on facilities that they would love a pay back on.

hvacker · Oct 6, 2020

Without competition or demand few things change. The government getting involved comes from the demands of voters. The other demand voters make is cheaper what ever it is. A double bind.
In some cases the raw costs make government intervention necessary. Industry has to get hit in the head before they invest.
When energy management became a big deal was after the oil embargo in the 70's.

At a sales meeting a company made this statement. In terms of energy savings there are 3 levels. He called bronze, silver, and gold. If selling energy savings a bronze pays for itself in 5 years, the silver in 3, and gold is less than 3 preferably in 1.
The reasoning was the person that makes the purchase, probably the CEO, has his future tied to bottom line because he doesn't plan on being with this company past 5-7 years. He's upwardly mobile.
So the payback has to be quick or forgetaboutit. That's industry's attitude and how they survive.

In the 60's it was said you'd never get 20 mpg from a Detroit tank. Not that their engineers couldn't figure it out it was they were in bed with the gasoline producers. There would never have been a mussel car if not for Detroit making big engines that needed higher octane gas and got 10 mpg. Demand from consumers didn't exist because they didn't know these cars could be made street legal. The best performers were tiny European cars with usually 4 bangers.
Anyway, that's my take on American industry.

WAYNE3298 · Oct 6, 2020

Most manufacturers I worked with wanted a 3 year payback. They weren't going to be adventurous unless they could get it. I started driving when muscle cars were the rage and very few people wanted the economy four cylinder cars. Most people thought they were unsafe. Everyone wanted to brag about driving 120 MPH and gasoline consumption wasn't even considered. Gasoline was 18.9 cents a gallon unless there was a gas war and I bought it once for 7 cents a gallon. The oil shortage changed all that.

hvacker · Oct 7, 2020

Strange days. Younger people either wanted a VW or a muscle car. I didn't drive muscle cars. I was a hot rodder. I did price a GTO once. $2900. I remember the AC teemed with Shelby to create the Cobra caught my interest. Can't remember the $$ but I think it was under 6K when it was offered.

Most ( the VW crowd) don't want to save $$ as a first goal. It's more about either doing the right thing, not violating the Earth, not being wasteful, sticking it to the corporates. It costs a lot sometimes to save $$.
But not all. I remember a guy with his new 409 Chevy. I told him what he might expect for mileage. About 2 months later he was having his carb re-jetted so he could buy cheaper 25cent/gal gas at the corner. This was not major brand but what was left over's the major's couldn't sell. Same stuff. 25 cents/gal is the cheapest I remember (midwest)

Sapote · Oct 7, 2020

hvacker said:
Strange days. Younger people either wanted a VW or a muscle car.
Most ( the VW crowd) don't want to save $$ as a first goal. It's more about either doing the right thing, not violating the Earth, not being wasteful, sticking it to the corporates. It costs a lot sometimes to save $$.

For those, they think money is just an exchange medium and carry less real value than a healthy planet. You can't print the earth as money.

WAYNE3298 · Oct 7, 2020

When I started driving all that mattered was fast especially off the line. The earth was just here.

Artrose · Oct 7, 2020

Old guy talking again.........

Simply stated, too many humans give themselves too much credit for destroying environment. Sadly, it's not entirely their fault for thinking that way. As they age and experience life, and the consequences of their misguided actions continue to bear more fruit, most of them will eventually come around.

WAYNE3298 · Oct 7, 2020

Hey what's this old guy stuff?

Thought about it and by damn you're right.

hvacker · Oct 8, 2020

Actually I'm not sure white is a best choice everywhere. Just based on load, most heating loads are greater than cooling loads. Cooling will on average lower the indoor temp 20-30 degrees . Heating might have to raise the temp 70 deg or more in deep winter. It might seem a dark roof would be more efficient in many parts of the country.
Not counting the difference in energy costs. Here we get really cheap NG.

Poodle Head Mikey · Oct 9, 2020

I'm not sure either.

It's a concept that I've pondered for some years. I do agree that white roofing is probably un-needed anywhere that AC isn't needed. But I do not think that even a fully black roof really contributes in any meaningful way to winter time heating of the conditioned space. Even on a bright sunny cold day the attics I've been in have not been hot, or even warm really. And they would have to be in order to conduct any heat downward into the living space.

PHM
----------

WAYNE3298 · Oct 9, 2020

The problem with trying to get winter heat from roofing is most attics are vented. Even if you heat the underside of the roof if it's vented the air rises and goes out the vents.

WAYNE3298 · Oct 9, 2020

My point hvacker with vented attics is the heated air is lighter than the air just above the ceiling and if vented for the most part stays as high as it can and then goes out the vent. For that reason I never worried about saving energy with roofing color.

hvacker · Oct 9, 2020

I understand your point and the savings if existed wouldn't contribute much probably. In another way supermarkets used to condition the whole space (long ago) but learned they could just condition the first 8 feet or so. Just where their customers were. Customers often wore warm clothes in colder seasons so shopping was more comfortable and liked the cool air in summer. I only learned about the change in design but not about energy savings.
Most homes with cooling will condition the whole structure even though it's not always occupied like at night. A vote for mini's I guess. Or Earth Ships. Those partially bermed houses in Taos NM.

We've all watched the housing industry change their construction habits very little when compared to what has been learned in the last 50 years. Most don't like Government intervention but when an industry resists change what are the options. The market won't control itself. We would still be installing the same machines we did in the 70's.

WAYNE3298 · Oct 10, 2020

The cost of energy has been the main driver of energy conservation. Part of that was government intervention but it all started when the cost of oil skyrocketed and you had to wait in line to get it. I never understood willful waste of anything.
Where I disagree with the approach concerning renewable energy is the government edict on things. The world will run out of most energy as we know it but if they want to help it along they should do it with well thought out programs. When they decided that emissions from cars had to be reduced the first things they required increased fuel consumption dramatically. I did a lot of car repair at the time and made a lot of cars run right because the dealers finally told the owners they knew how to make them run right but were not allowed to.

hvacker · Oct 10, 2020

Many businesses are publicly owned. They expect an ROI and contribute the problem of investment by corporates. Between the two little would change except for public demand and/or government involvement. Much of the new ideas come from our National Labs. In our paper they print (usual) weekly patents issued by the labs. Some get licensed to public production. Most new ideas will stall out in the corporates unless the ROI is in their face.

I've led to understand that a few countries, Japan especially, will invest in an idea even though it shows only moderate chance of amounting to anything. Few American corporates will take that risk. I'm hoping the new generation will have a different take.

I know Detroit's early efforts caused other problems. They seemed more of a stop gap effort but helped get us where we are today.
Like you I also was involved in cars. Had to clean spark plugs every 3000 miles,rebuild engine at 50000. A modern mechanic can't work on old Harley's because the clearances are too sloppy. Same goes for a ol' timer HD mechanic can't work on new HD's. This isn't just me. A major HD shop in Canada says the same.
New engines are more like a Swiss watch. There seemed to be a lot more AC compressors fail years ago.

Government's response happens when no one else will make the effort. We would still dumping refrigerant instead of recycling.
I believe Regan was wrong when he said something like "the worst thing to here is I'm from the Government and I'm here to help."
I believe ideally that's the Gov's role. It's run by people just like us and while prone to mistakes it's usually not intentional.

WAYNE3298 · Oct 10, 2020

The biggest single improvement in the gasoline/diesel engine was the result of the military needing to be capable of fording streams. They needed to vent the crankcase through the air cleaner so a hose extended above the water line would keep water out of the engine. A guy named Donaldson invented the positive crankcase ventilation valve (PCV) and called it the Donaldson Valve. It not only accomplished what it was designed for but reduced air pollution and doubled the life of the engine. We need a lot more inventions like that.

COMPRESSION TIME — Liquid-air energy storage

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities